IDRIS — Impact & Due Diligence Risk Intelligence Scoring

Methodology Whitepaper for Regulators and Investors

Methodology Whitepaper · Version 1.0 · 2026

IDRIS

Impact & Due Diligence Risk Intelligence Scoring

A composite impact scoring framework for investment due diligence, covering projects from €1,500 to €50,000,000 across worldwide geographies. Compliant with EU Taxonomy, SFDR, CSRD/ESRS, TCFD and PRIIPs/MiFID II — and going further by measuring real-world outcomes on climate, gender equity, social mobility, territory, governance, pollution and innovation.

EU Taxonomy SFDR Art. 6 / 8 / 9 CSRD / ESRS TCFD PRIIPs / MiFID II

SDG alignment:

Executive Summary

IDRIS is an impact-first due diligence scoring framework designed for investment professionals, ESG compliance officers, external investors and regulators evaluating projects from €1,500 micro-investments to €50,000,000 infrastructure and private equity transactions across all geographies.

Unlike conventional ESG rating systems — which measure corporate sustainability disclosures — IDRIS measures the real-world outcomes of an investment activity against today’s critical global challenges: climate change, gender inequality, social mobility, territorial wealth distribution, pollution, corruption and democratic governance.

The framework operates on two layers:

• Regulatory compliance gate — verifies adherence to the five applicable EU frameworks (EU Taxonomy, SFDR, CSRD/ESRS, TCFD, PRIIPs/MiFID II)
• Extended impact composite score — measures transformative outcomes across eight dimensions, weighted to reflect the empirically-established hierarchy of social determinants

The central methodological departure from ESG is the Social Priority Principle: gender equity, social mobility and governance together account for 50% of the total score, on the basis that social determinants are upstream of all other outcomes. A project delivering strong climate metrics but failing on gender equity or local value creation is extractive, not transformative. IDRIS will not classify it as green.

This whitepaper is addressed to four audiences: investment analysts who use the scoring app daily; ESG and compliance officers who need to map outputs to regulatory obligations; external investors and LPs who need to understand methodology robustness; and regulators (AMF, ECB, EBA) who need to verify that the framework meets or exceeds current EU requirements.

---

1 The Problem with ESG

1.1 ESG Measures Disclosure, Not Outcome

The widespread adoption of ESG frameworks since 2015 has produced a paradox: the volume of sustainability disclosure has increased dramatically while the measurable real-world outcomes on climate, inequality and biodiversity have continued to deteriorate. The reason is structural. ESG frameworks — including those mandated by SFDR and CSRD — measure whether a company reports on environmental and social risks, not whether its activities produce positive outcomes for people and ecosystems.

A coal company with excellent sustainability reporting will score well on SFDR PAI disclosure. A microfinance institution in rural Senegal with no compliance department will score poorly. The signal is inverted relative to impact.

1.2 The Green and Social Washing Problem

IDRIS is designed explicitly to resist greenwashing and social washing — the practices by which investment products present themselves as sustainable or impactful without substantive evidence of real-world benefit. The three design choices that operationalise this resistance are:

Outcome orientation. Every dimension score is derived from observable project characteristics — sector, geography, investment size, GHG intensity — not from self-reported ESG disclosures, which are subject to selection bias, measurement inconsistency and regulatory arbitrage.

Social Priority Principle. By weighting gender equity and social mobility at 35% of the total composite, IDRIS ensures that no project can reach a Green or Dark Green band through environmental performance alone. Climate action that does not benefit women, workers and local communities is not transformative impact.

Social Veto Rule. If a project scores below 30 out of 100 on either the gender equity or social mobility dimension, it is automatically capped at Amber regardless of its composite score. This is not a penalty — it is a recognition that certain social failures are disqualifying, not merely penalising.

---

2 The IDRIS Framework

2.1 Design Principles

IDRIS was designed around five principles drawn from the impact investment literature (IMP, GIIN, Bridgespan Group, UNDP SDG Finance):

1. Additionality. The framework rewards investments that go beyond what would have happened anyway — projects in underserved geographies, underfinanced sectors, or with explicit inclusion mandates score higher than equivalent projects in well-served markets.

2. Materiality. Scores are weighted toward dimensions where the investment has measurable causal influence — a microfinance project has high gender and social materiality; a renewable energy plant has high climate and pollution materiality.

3. Contextualisation. Country-level data (Transparency International CPI, ND-GAIN Climate Vulnerability Index, UNDP Human Development Index) adjusts scores for operating context. A 5 MW solar plant in Nigeria represents greater additionality than the same plant in Denmark.

4. Explainability. Every component of every dimension score is a simple algebraic function of observable inputs. There are no black-box transformations, no embeddings, no latent variables. Any analyst or regulator can reproduce any score from first principles using the formulas in Section 3.

5. Regulatory coherence. The framework is designed to be a superset of regulatory requirements — every SFDR PAI indicator is represented, every EU Taxonomy objective is addressable, every TCFD category is covered. Passing the regulatory gate is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a high IDRIS score.

2.2 Architecture Overview

INPUTS

CountrySector Asset classInvestment size (€) GHG intensityGender factor Governance score

↓

CONTEXT CALIBRATION

TI CPI (corruption) ND-GAIN (climate vulnerability) UNDP HDI (development) Log-scale investment normalisation

↓

8 IMPACT DIMENSIONS (0–100 each)

Gender 20% Social 15% Governance 15% Climate 18% Pollution 10% Water 8% Territory 8% Innovation 6%

↓

SOCIAL VETO RULE

Gender < 30 OR Social < 30
→ Band capped at Amber

COMPOSITE SCORE

Weighted sum 0–100
Band: Red / Amber / Green / Dark Green

↓

REGULATORY GATE (5 frameworks)

EU Taxonomy SFDR Art. 6/8/9 CSRD/ESRS TCFD PRIIPs/MiFID II

---

3 Dimension Scoring Methodology

3.1 Weight Rationale: The Social Priority Principle

The weight allocation reflects a specific theoretical position: social determinants are upstream of environmental outcomes. This position is grounded in the following evidence:

The World Bank’s 2023 Gender Strategy demonstrates that gender equality is the single strongest predictor of long-term development outcomes, outperforming GDP per capita, rule of law and institutional quality as a predictor of sustainable economic growth. UNDP’s Human Development Index data across 191 countries shows that HDI improvement is three times faster in countries with high gender equality scores.

Social mobility — the ability of individuals and communities to improve their economic position through access to education, employment and services — determines whether economic value generated by an investment stays in the territory or is extracted by distant capital holders. An investment that generates €10M in revenue but captures none of it locally has negative territorial impact regardless of its sectoral characteristics.

Governance and anti-corruption functions as a multiplier: in high-corruption environments, all other positive impacts are diminished through rent extraction, misallocation and institutional decay. The empirical relationship between Transparency International CPI scores and development outcomes is among the most robust findings in development economics.

Dimension	Weight	Priority group	Reference standards
Gender & Social Equity	20%	Social Primary	SFDR PAI 12–13, UNDP Gender SDG 5, ILO
Social Mobility	15%	Social Primary	SFDR PAI 9–11, IMP Depth/Duration, GIIN IRIS+
Governance & Anti-Corruption	15%	Social Primary	SFDR PAI 16–17, TI CPI, FATF, CSDDD Art. 3
Climate & Environment	18%	Environmental	EU Taxonomy Obj. 1–2, SFDR PAI 1–4, TCFD
Pollution & Health	10%	Environmental	EU Taxonomy Obj. 3, SFDR PAI 7–9, WHO Air Quality
Water & Resources	8%	Environmental	EU Taxonomy Obj. 4, SFDR PAI 6–8, SDG 6
Territory & Local Wealth	8%	Systemic	GIIN Place-based impact, OECD Regional Dev., SDG 10–11
Innovation & Resilience	6%	Systemic	IMP Depth of change, GIIN IRIS+ Employment duration
Total	100%	Social 50% · Environmental 36% · Systemic 14%

3.2 Gender & Social Equity (20%)

What it measures: The degree to which the investment promotes gender equality and reduces structural discrimination — in the workplace, the supply chain, and the communities served.

Formula:

\[G = \left( g \cdot 55 + \frac{\text{CPI}}{100} \cdot 25 + \text{HDI} \cdot 15 - \left(1 - \frac{\text{CPI}}{100}\right) \cdot 20 \right) \times \frac{100}{75}\]

Where \(g\) is the gender equality factor (0–1, derived from sector and analyst override), CPI is the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (0–100) for the country of operation, and HDI is the UNDP Human Development Index (0–1).

The term \(-(1-\text{CPI}/100)\times 20\) is the corruption-gender penalty: high corruption actively suppresses women’s economic participation through enforcement failures, institutional bias and informal economy dominance. This term gives the formula its full 0–100 range — a project in a high-corruption, low-development country with a gender-insensitive sector will score in the 15–30 range, triggering the Social Veto Rule.

Social Veto Rule: If Gender score < 30, the project band is capped at Amber.

3.3 Social Mobility (15%)

What it measures: The degree to which the investment creates durable economic opportunity for local communities — employment quality, skills transfer, living wage access, and the share of economic value retained in the territory.

Formula:

\[S = s_f \cdot 50 + \text{HDI} \cdot 25 + \sigma \cdot 15 + b - (1 - \text{HDI})(1 - s_f) \cdot 25\]

Where \(s_f\) is the sector social factor (0.82 for high-social sectors, 0.38 for extractive, 0.60 otherwise), \(\sigma\) is the investment size factor (log-normalised 0–1), and \(b\) is a sector bonus (+15 for Healthcare, Education, Microfinance, Financial Inclusion, Social Infrastructure, Affordable Housing, Water & Sanitation).

The structural deprivation penalty term \((1 - \text{HDI})(1 - s_f) \cdot 25\) ensures that an extractive industry project in a low-development country cannot achieve a high social mobility score — even at large scale. It is specifically designed to prevent large-ticket infrastructure projects in low-HDI countries from scoring well through scale alone without genuine local value creation.

Social Veto Rule: If Social score < 30, the project band is capped at Amber.

3.4 Governance & Anti-Corruption (15%)

What it measures: The institutional quality of the operating environment, the transparency of ownership structures, and the exposure to corruption, money laundering and regulatory arbitrage.

Formula:

\[\Gamma = \frac{\text{CPI}}{100} \cdot 65 + \delta_{\text{EU}} \cdot 20 + \delta_{\text{asset}} \cdot 10\]

Where \(\delta_{\text{EU}}\) is 1 if the project is in an EU member state (EU regulatory perimeter provides enhanced investor protection, AML enforcement and beneficial ownership transparency), and \(\delta_{\text{asset}}\) is 1 if the asset class is Green Bond or Project Finance (both require structured governance frameworks).

This dimension maps directly to SFDR PAI indicators 16 (exposure to controversial weapons) and 17 (tax jurisdiction), and to CSDDD Article 3 due diligence requirements on governance of value chain partners.

3.5 Climate & Environment (18%)

Formula:

\[C = (1 - \gamma) \cdot 70 + \delta_{\text{tax}} \cdot 20 - V \cdot 15 + \sigma \cdot 5\]

Where \(\gamma\) is GHG intensity (0–1, sector default or analyst override), \(\delta_{\text{tax}}\) is 1 if the sector is EU Taxonomy-eligible, \(V\) is the ND-GAIN climate vulnerability score (0–1) for the country of operation, and \(\sigma\) is the size factor.

The vulnerability deduction reflects physical climate risk: a project operating in a highly climate-vulnerable territory faces greater risk of stranded assets and reduced long-term climate contribution. This term links directly to TCFD physical risk assessment.

3.6 Pollution & Health (10%)

Formula:

\[P = (1 - \gamma) \cdot 75 + \delta_{\text{tax}} \cdot 20\]

A simplified function of GHG intensity and taxonomy eligibility. Projects with low emissions intensity and in taxonomy-eligible sectors (which must pass DNSH on pollution prevention) receive the highest scores. Maps to EU Taxonomy Objective 3 (prevention and control of pollution).

3.7 Water & Resources (8%)

Formula:

\[W = 70 - \Delta_{\text{water}} - V \cdot 20\]

Where \(\Delta_{\text{water}}\) is 40 if GHG intensity > 0.4 (water-intensive sectors such as extractive industry and heavy manufacturing), otherwise \(\gamma \times 30\). Maps to EU Taxonomy Objective 4 and SFDR PAI 6 (water usage and recycling).

3.8 Territory & Local Wealth (8%)

Formula:

\[T = 30 + (1 - \text{HDI}) \cdot 40 + \delta_{\text{EU}} \cdot 20 + \sigma \cdot 10\]

The \((1 - \text{HDI}) \cdot 40\) term encodes a key principle: investments in lower-development territories have greater additionality potential. A €500,000 microfinance project in rural Ethiopia has greater territorial development impact than the same amount invested in a French urban SME, even if the French project is better governed. This does not reward poor governance — the governance dimension handles that separately. It rewards geographic additionality.

3.9 Innovation & Resilience (6%)

Formula:

\[I = 40 + \delta_{\text{innov}} \cdot 30 + \sigma \cdot 20 + \text{HDI} \cdot 10\]

Where \(\delta_{\text{innov}}\) is 1 for sectors classified as innovation-intensive: Renewable Energy, Digital Infrastructure, Clean Transportation, Energy Efficiency, Circular Economy, Education & Skills, Financial Inclusion, Water & Sanitation.

---

4 The Social Veto Rule

The Social Veto Rule is the most distinctive feature of the IDRIS framework and the one most likely to be challenged by issuers seeking high ratings. We address the challenge directly.

The rule: If the Gender equity dimension score falls below 30/100 OR the Social mobility dimension score falls below 30/100, the project band is capped at Amber, regardless of the composite IDRIS score. The composite score itself is not altered — it still appears in the output — but the regulatory band and SFDR article recommendation are downgraded.

Why 30 and not a higher threshold? The threshold of 30 is calibrated to represent a structural failure rather than a contextual weakness. A score of 30 on the gender dimension corresponds approximately to an extractive sector project operating in a high- corruption, very-low-development country with no gender policy provisions. This is not a borderline case — it represents a combination of sector, geography and governance that is systematically hostile to gender equality. The threshold is not designed to penalise well-intentioned projects in difficult contexts; it is designed to identify projects where gender equity failure is load-bearing to the business model.

Regulatory basis: While no current EU regulation mandates a social veto rule in these precise terms, the rule is consistent with:

• SFDR Article 4 mandatory PAI disclosure requirements (PAI 12: gender pay gap, PAI 13: board gender diversity)
• CSDDD Articles 3–7 on human rights and working conditions due diligence
• The European Parliament’s 2023 position on the Social Taxonomy, which proposed minimum social safeguards as preconditions for taxonomy alignment
• IFC Performance Standard 2 on Labor and Working Conditions
• The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

---

5 Regulatory Framework Mapping

5.1 EU Taxonomy

The IDRIS framework maps to all six EU Taxonomy environmental objectives:

Obj.	Description	IDRIS dimensions
1	Climate change mitigation	Climate (18%), Pollution (10%)
2	Climate change adaptation	Climate (18%), Territory (8%)
3	Sustainable use of water	Water (8%)
4	Circular economy	Water (8%), Innovation (6%)
5	Pollution prevention	Pollution (10%)
6	Biodiversity	Climate (18%), Water (8%)

Taxonomy eligibility is assessed by sector classification. Taxonomy alignment requires passing the Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) test (GHG intensity < 0.50 AND climate vulnerability < 0.70) and achieving a Substantial Contribution score > 40%.

5.2 SFDR Principal Adverse Impact Indicators

All 18 mandatory PAI indicators are represented in the IDRIS aggregate PAI score:

PAI	Description	IDRIS mapping
1	GHG emissions intensity	Climate, Pollution dimensions
2	Carbon footprint	Climate dimension
3	GHG intensity of investee companies	Climate dimension
4	Exposure to fossil fuel sector	Sector classification
5	Non-renewable energy consumption	Climate, Innovation
6	Energy consumption intensity	Water dimension
7	Biodiversity-sensitive areas	Climate dimension
8	Water emissions	Water dimension
9	Hazardous waste	Pollution dimension
10	Violations of UNGC / OECD	Governance dimension
11	Lack of UNGC / OECD process	Governance dimension
12	Unadjusted gender pay gap	Gender dimension
13	Board gender diversity	Gender dimension
14	Exposure to controversial weapons	Governance dimension
15	GHG intensity (real estate)	Climate dimension
16	Energy performance (real estate)	Climate dimension
17	Exposure to fossil fuels (real estate)	Climate dimension
18	Exposure to energy-inefficient assets	Climate dimension

5.3 SFDR Article Classification Logic

Article 9

EU Taxonomy aligned AND IDRIS ≥ 72 AND PAI score ≥ 70

Sustainable investment objective. Highest disclosure burden. Product must demonstrate Taxonomy alignment and comprehensive PAI management.

Article 8

IDRIS ≥ 50 AND PAI score ≥ 50

Promotes environmental or social characteristics. Must disclose PAI consideration methodology and binding E/S elements in investment strategy.

Article 6

All other cases

No specific sustainability claims. Sustainability risk integration disclosure required.

5.4 TCFD Climate Risk Assessment

IDRIS generates two TCFD risk flags per project:

Physical risk is derived from the ND-GAIN Climate Vulnerability Index for the country of operation. Low: vulnerability < 0.40. Medium: 0.40–0.65. High: > 0.65.

Transition risk is derived from sector classification. High-transition sectors (Extractive Industry, Manufacturing, Food & Nutrition, Private Equity diversified) face significant regulatory and market disruption risk under 1.5°C–2°C pathways. Low- transition sectors (Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, Clean Transportation, Circular Economy, Biodiversity) are net beneficiaries of the transition.

5.5 CSRD / ESRS Double Materiality

Following the 2025 Omnibus revision, CSRD applies to companies with > 1,000 employees and > €450M turnover. IDRIS applies a proxy rule: projects with investment > €5M in EU jurisdictions outside financial inclusion sectors are flagged as likely in-scope for CSRD reporting by the investee company.

Double materiality flags are generated for impact materiality (does the activity have significant environmental or social impacts?) and financial materiality (are sustainability risks material to the financial performance of the investment?).

5.6 PRIIPs / MiFID II Suitability

IDRIS generates a MiFID II suitability score (0–10) for each project, combining the IDRIS composite score, SFDR article classification and TCFD risk flags. This feeds directly into investor preference matching under MiFID II Article 9(1)(a) sustainability preference assessment, enabling portfolio-level suitability reporting.

---

6 Score Bands and Decision Framework

Band	Score range	Recommended SFDR	Decision guidance
Dark Green	75 – 100	Article 9	Flagship impact investment. Full Taxonomy alignment typically achieved. Suitable for Article 9 product eligibility.
Green	58 – 74	Article 8	Strong impact profile. Promotes E/S characteristics. Article 8 product eligible with documented E/S binding elements.
Amber	40 – 57	Article 6 or 8	Mixed profile. Review dimension weaknesses. Social veto may be active. Additional due diligence recommended before classification.
Red	0 – 39	Article 6	Significant adverse impacts identified. Not suitable for impact mandate. Investment should be declined or substantially restructured.

---

7 Country and Sector Reference Data

7.1 Country Context Indices

Country calibration data is sourced from three publicly available, annually-updated indices:

• Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) — used in governance and gender dimension scoring. Scores range 0–100 (0=highly corrupt, 100=very clean). 2023 data.
• Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN) Climate Vulnerability Index — used in climate and water dimension scoring and TCFD physical risk classification. Scores range 0–1 (0=low vulnerability, 1=high vulnerability). 2022 data.
• UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) — used in social mobility, gender, territory and innovation dimension scoring. Scores range 0–1 (0=low development, 1=very high development). 2023 data.

The framework covers 50 countries spanning all major investment geographies. For unlisted countries, a conservative default (CPI=45, Vuln=0.50, HDI=0.70) is applied.

7.2 Sector Taxonomy Eligibility

Sector	Taxonomy eligible	GHG intensity	Social tier
Renewable Energy	Yes	Very low (0.05)	Medium
Energy Efficiency	Yes	Low (0.10)	Medium
Water & Sanitation	Yes	Very low (0.08)	High
Clean Transportation	Yes	Low (0.15)	Medium
Green Building / Real Estate	Yes	Low (0.20)	Medium
Circular Economy	Yes	Low (0.18)	Medium
Biodiversity / Nature	Yes	Very low (0.05)	Medium
Sustainable Agriculture	Yes	Medium (0.35)	High
Social Infrastructure	Yes	Low (0.10)	High
Healthcare	No	Low (0.22)	High
Education & Skills	No	Low (0.12)	High
Financial Inclusion / Microfinance	No	Very low (0.10–0.15)	High
Affordable Housing	No	Low (0.28)	High
Digital Infrastructure	No	Medium (0.25)	Low
SME Finance	No	Medium (0.30)	Medium
Food & Nutrition	No	Medium-high (0.42)	Medium
Manufacturing (conventional)	No	High (0.65)	Low
Extractive Industry	No	Very high (0.85)	Low

---

8 Validation and Benchmarking

8.1 Synthetic Dataset

The IDRIS framework was developed and validated against a synthetic benchmark dataset of 2,000 investment projects generated using the generate_data.py module. The dataset covers all 50 countries, all 20 sectors, all 6 asset classes, and a log-uniform distribution of investment sizes from €1,500 to €50,000,000.

Dataset statistics (2,000 projects):

Metric	Value
IDRIS score range	23.3 – 84.0
Mean IDRIS score	58.5
Article 9 classification	9.7%
Article 8 classification	70.4%
Article 6 classification	19.9%
Taxonomy aligned	40.1%
Social veto triggered	1.1%
Dark Green band	5.4%
Green band	50.2%
Amber band	37.6%
Red band	6.9%

8.2 Score Coherence Checks

Three properties of the scoring system were validated against prior expectations:

Geographic ordering. Nordic EU member states (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) consistently score highest; sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia score lowest on average. This reflects the CPI, HDI and climate vulnerability differentials across regions. The scoring correctly does not penalise low-HDI countries for having lower development scores — the territory dimension includes an additionality term that rewards investment in underserved geographies.

Sector ordering. Renewable Energy, Education and Microfinance score highest; Extractive Industry and conventional Manufacturing score lowest. The ordering is consistent across geographies — a renewable energy project in Nigeria scores higher than an extractive project in Denmark.

Social veto coherence. The 22 veto-triggered projects in the dataset are exclusively in high-corruption, low-development geographies with extractive or low-social-factor sectors. No EU-member-state project triggers the veto. No social-sector project (healthcare, education, microfinance) triggers the veto in any geography.

---

9 Limitations and Future Development

9.1 Current Limitations

Sector granularity. The current implementation uses 20 sector categories. Real-world projects often span multiple sectors or represent niche activities not well-captured by the taxonomy. Future versions will support multi-sector blending with user-defined sector weights.

Analyst data dependency. The framework produces strongest results when analysts provide project-specific data (actual GHG intensity, measured gender pay gap, governance audit results). In the absence of such data, sector and country defaults are applied — these are calibrated to be conservative but cannot substitute for field due diligence.

Dynamic index updates. CPI, HDI and ND-GAIN data are updated annually. The framework requires an annual recalibration of country reference data to remain current.

Social veto threshold calibration. The 30/100 threshold for the Social Veto Rule was set by expert judgment and validated against the synthetic dataset. A formal empirical calibration against real investment outcomes data would strengthen its defensibility before regulators.

9.2 Roadmap

• v1.1: Multi-sector blending, SFDR annex template auto-generation
• v1.2: Integration with Bloomberg ESG, MSCI ESG and Sustainalytics data APIs
• v1.3: Portfolio-level aggregation and fund-level SFDR entity reporting
• v2.0: Machine learning calibration layer trained on verified impact outcomes data from GIIN, IFC and development finance institutions

---

10 References

1. European Commission (2020). Regulation (EU) 2020/852 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment (EU Taxonomy Regulation).
2. European Commission (2019). Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR).
3. European Commission (2022). Directive (EU) 2022/2464 on Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSRD).
4. European Commission (2022). Directive (EU) 2022/2523 on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD).
5. TCFD (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Financial Stability Board.
6. Transparency International (2023). Corruption Perceptions Index 2023.
7. UNDP (2023). Human Development Report 2023/24. United Nations Development Programme.
8. University of Notre Dame (2022). ND-GAIN Country Index. Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative.
9. GIIN (2020). IRIS+ System for Impact Measurement and Management. Global Impact Investing Network.
10. IMP (2019). A Guide to Classifying the Impact of an Investment. Impact Management Project.
11. World Bank (2023). Women, Business and the Law 2023.
12. ILO (2022). World Employment and Social Outlook 2022. International Labour Organization.
13. Allen, T. et al. (2016). Social Mobility and Its Drivers. OECD Publishing.
14. Bridgespan Group (2021). The State of Impact Measurement.

---

Danki Studio Nambona Adeline YANGUERE

IDRIS v1.0 · This framework is provided for informational and due diligence support purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, legal advice or regulatory guidance. Classification outputs should be reviewed by qualified compliance professionals before use in regulated product disclosure.